| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2004 04:19:11 PM · #51 |
| I agree there are other ways (although I disagree that Saddam is a good example because that took the intervention of outside force). But no plot to overthrow the government would ever succeed. I also think it's naive to believe the people have so much voting power that the government could be overthrown in any "civilized" way. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 04:29:52 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
It is only the lack of such an exception for such protection of the life of the mother that the current law was struck down. |
This isn't entirely accurate. The current law was struck down because it made no exception for "the health of the mother". This phrase, legally, is way to vague. It would include mental health and thus allow the procedure if not doing it would be depressing to the mother. I've found it interesting that the pro-abortionist are concerned about the health of the "Mother", but that they deny the fetus is a child. Who is the "mother" a mother of?
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 04:34:37 PM · #53 |
| The mother in this case refers to the origin or source of the fetus. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 04:39:52 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by kevinf:
The mother in this case refers to the origin or source of the fetus. |
Is this definition from a medical journal? Cause I sure can't find it in any dictionary...
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 04:44:01 PM · #55 |
| Well, origin is a definition of mother when used as an adjective rather than a noun. But really I just wrote that as something somewhat tounge in cheek. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 05:17:23 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
It's a slippery slope, though. One by one, as liberal (academic definition of liberal here) values are being replaced by conservative values, personal freedoms are being eroded. Remember when you could drive a car without a seatbelt? Go helmetless on a motorcycle? Drive a big old gas guzzler in Los Angeles? I hear it now....'yeah but we know those things are bad'. Doesn't matter. When personal freedoms are taken away for the good of your society you're moving away from the ultimate ideal of personal freedom on which the US was based. It happens so subtly that you don't even notice that you weren't as free as you were before. It adds up, though. In taking away personal freedoms (remember the whole photographing bridges thing that got us into this whole discussion) and putting fear in people about not speaking out lest they get branded a 'terrorist' is taking this further. Bush is using th eword freedom but, in such things as the Patriot Act, what he's actually doing is taking personal freedom for the sake of the good of the whole. This is fundamentally different than what America was supposed to be all about. It smacks of fascism. When you hear the phrase 'neo-con' that's just a euphemism for fascist.
Originally posted by nborton:
while i am not saying it couldn't happen. i find it very unlikely that the "average" person typing a key word is going to be "black listed". supposing that a program can catch every key word, and not miss a single one. it seems as though there would be so much to go through and investigate, it would take an army of people to work through it all.
edit: by the way i am not for privacy invasion either. however, the sheer number of key word hits has to be huge. in a sence, there is privacy in being lost in the numbers. |
|
No not Fascism, Communism. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 05:28:14 PM · #57 |
No, fascism. Both fascism and communism have elements of utilitarianism, but fascism is based in conservatism and communism is based in socialism. You're not saying that the US is socialist are you?
Originally posted by jmritz:
No not Fascism, Communism. |
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 06:19:33 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
No, fascism. Both fascism and communism have elements of utilitarianism, but fascism is based in conservatism and communism is based in socialism. You're not saying that the US is socialist are you?
Originally posted by jmritz:
No not Fascism, Communism. |
|
More socialist than fascist, yes.
No I must change that. It might be more fascist. I̢۪ve come to believe the Left in America is very close to Fascist. Especially with their intolerance of religion. Their belief that critical thinking and (government as God) is an answer for the Masses. Pure Socialism is to the left Fascism to the right and they in their extremes meet. Totalitarian governments that will not tolerate any thing not of themselves, especially Religions.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 06:48:51 PM · #59 |
YOu're confused. Leftist can't (by definition) be fascist.
Originally posted by jmritz:
More socialist than fascist, yes.
No I must change that. It might be more fascist. I̢۪ve come to believe the Left in America is very close to Fascist. Especially with their intolerance of religion. Their belief that critical thinking and (government as God) is an answer for the Masses. Pure Socialism is to the left Fascism to the right and they in their extremes meet. Totalitarian governments that will not tolerate any thing not of themselves, especially Religions. |
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 07:22:16 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
YOu're confused. Leftist can't (by definition) be fascist.
Originally posted by jmritz:
More socialist than fascist, yes.
No I must change that. It might be more fascist. I̢۪ve come to believe the Left in America is very close to Fascist. Especially with their intolerance of religion. Their belief that critical thinking and (government as God) is an answer for the Masses. Pure Socialism is to the left Fascism to the right and they in their extremes meet. Totalitarian governments that will not tolerate any thing not of themselves, especially Religions. |
|
But the hard core communists that lost Russia were called conservatives by our press every day. Also by changing the meaning of words, suddenly those words have no meaning.
If a person was indoctrinated everyday of their lives they would have a tendency to believe what THEY ARE TOLD. Even if it contradicts logic.
It is the left that is endlessly talking my Rights away. I should be able to drive my car without a seatbelt. They took that little decision away. Control. They want my guns. They want to take the ability to defend myself and family away. Maybe it is farfetched but what is the end in sight that they want?
Do you really believe the Leftist̢۪s in this country will leave us alone to live free if they ever get control of things?
I know Leftist isn̢۪t fascist by definition, maybe that̢۪s what they want us to believe.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 07:46:07 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Anachronite:
But partial birth abortions definately should be banned. |
You believe in justifiable homocide, right? If I point a gun at you, you will shoot me down without compunction or fear of prosecution.
Why then, if the continued existence of that fetus is a threat to the life of the mother, do you not accord her the same right to defend her life by any means necessary?
It is only the lack of such an exception for such protection of the life of the mother that the current law was struck down.
This is not a routine procedure used for "birth control" because she forgot her "pill" or the rapist didn't use a rubber. It's an exceptional procedure primarily used in desperate circumstances. |
Quite frankly, the health of the mother is not going to be helped at all with a partial birth abortion. I had a perfectly normal, textbook pregnancy with my firstborn. The labor, though it had its difficult moments, was also considered "normal" for a first delivery. Almost any woman who has delivered a child vaginally reaches a point where her health is at stake, even with the most normal of deliveries. Heart speed increased, blood pressure decreases, etc. etc. It is not an easy "procedure."
So, you induce labor (which in itself is stressful to both the baby and mother and with risks). If the baby is not feet first, the delivering dr turns the baby so that the feet will be born first. The doctor delivers the baby to the shoulders (feet first, mind you), then inserts a sharp object into the base of the baby's brain (who in just a few seconds would be a baby), then suctions the brain out.
Sounds humane to me. I honestly cannot fathom any reason why such a procedure should be necessary, much less argued about.
If the health of the mother is truly at stake, it would be determined before the birthing point, and if the health of the mother is at stake, why deliver everything but the head of the child?
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 19:48:43.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:13:01 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Anachronite:
Gay marriage definately should be banned. As for the TV shows the people in favor of gay marriage are the ones producing the shows. So your comparison has no ground to stand on here. Marriage should be kept sacred for a man and woman only, not given to those that have made a lifestyle choice to lead an anti-social lifestyle. |
How thoughtful of you to decide how I should live my life. When a hospital denies me the ability to visit my sick partner, I'll be sure to send you a thank you letter.
How coherent your ideals are, with your clearly stated opposition to any form of divorce, annulment, secular weddings, Vegas weddings, weddings of convenience, or Married By America style TV shows that threaten the 'sanctity' of marriage. Until death do us part, right?
How astute of you to recognise my 'lifestyle' as a choice. I applaud you for your choice to set aside your own homosexual curiosities and commit to being a straight and proper social citizen. Congratulations.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:31:40 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by karmat:
[quote]These days I almost feel if you gave that novel to your average God-fearing Bush-supporting neo-con he/she would say 'yeah that sounds about right'. *Shudder* |
The danger about making generalizations about large groups of people is that they are very often wrong about many in that large group. [/quote]
Thank you. you said that so much more nicely and politely than I would have! |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:53:11 PM · #64 |
Have you read the book?
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by karmat:
[quote]These days I almost feel if you gave that novel to your average God-fearing Bush-supporting neo-con he/she would say 'yeah that sounds about right'. *Shudder* |
The danger about making generalizations about large groups of people is that they are very often wrong about many in that large group. |
Thank you. you said that so much more nicely and politely than I would have! [/quote]
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 08:54:52 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
YOu're confused. Leftist can't (by definition) be fascist. |
Some interesting reading on the subject.
Note this only introduces another dimension to an already oversimplified concept. However, separating economic and social policy is a start. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:05:57 PM · #66 |
Oversimplification is plainly necessary for someone who doesn't even understand the difference between communist and fascist, wouldn't you agree? I could go way into theory (lord knows I have to at school) if necessary. I'll check the link out, though.
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
YOu're confused. Leftist can't (by definition) be fascist. |
Some interesting reading on the subject.
Note this only introduces another dimension to an already oversimplified concept. However, separating economic and social policy is a start. |
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:10:39 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Have you read the book?
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by karmat:
[quote]These days I almost feel if you gave that novel to your average God-fearing Bush-supporting neo-con he/she would say 'yeah that sounds about right'. *Shudder* |
The danger about making generalizations about large groups of people is that they are very often wrong about many in that large group. |
Thank you. you said that so much more nicely and politely than I would have! |
[/quote]
I have.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:20:52 PM · #68 |
First of all, George Bush and his administration are showing us that they are not true conservatives being that they have increased the size of government tremendously and have increased the national deficit and espouse pre-emptive wars. Conservative adminsitrations don't go around invading other countries. Secondly, the way I understand Fascism is that it's a coming together of government and the corporate and using their powers of coercion and violence to further their aims. This couldn't be further from the stands that the left take.
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
No, fascism. Both fascism and communism have elements of utilitarianism, but fascism is based in conservatism and communism is based in socialism. You're not saying that the US is socialist are you?
Originally posted by jmritz:
No not Fascism, Communism. |
|
More socialist than fascist, yes.
No I must change that. It might be more fascist. I̢۪ve come to believe the Left in America is very close to Fascist. Especially with their intolerance of religion. Their belief that critical thinking and (government as God) is an answer for the Masses. Pure Socialism is to the left Fascism to the right and they in their extremes meet. Totalitarian governments that will not tolerate any thing not of themselves, especially Religions. |
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:36:17 PM · #69 |
Left leaning people are not intolerant of religion. We just don't want it thrust down our throats. Critical thinking is definitely a good thing, you disagree? And we certainly do not believe in "government as god." As a matter of fact, the corporations who give so much money to the politicans believe in government as god. Look at the thousands and thousands of dollars that Ken Lay of Enron has given to George Bush and the republicans.
Originally posted by jmritz:
I̢۪ve come to believe the Left in America is very close to Fascist. Especially with their intolerance of religion. Their belief that critical thinking and (government as God) is an answer for the Masses. |
The communists of the Soviet Union were totalitarianists and that is one of the reasons their system failed. Here it is becoming that as well. Repeat something often enough, as you've stated below, and the masses start to believe it...point in fact is Iraq had WMDs and links to al Qaeda. Both parties in this country pull the veil over our head with their PR firms who tell them how to couch things and yet are doing anything but what they have stated. such as we invaded for the purpose of spreading democracy. BS BS BS. But they couldn't sell a war if they said it was for oil and geopolitical reasons. We are being sold a bill of goods in this country.
I hate to tell you this, but it's not the left in control of things in this country, but rather the right, and your question should be will the conservatives leave us, and the rest of the world, alone to live our lives in peace.
Originally posted by jmritz:
But the hard core communists that lost Russia were called conservatives by our press every day. Also by changing the meaning of words, suddenly those words have no meaning. If a person was indoctrinated everyday of their lives they would have a tendency to believe what THEY ARE TOLD. Even if it contradicts logic.
Do you really believe the Leftist̢۪s in this country will leave us alone to live free if they ever get control of things?
I know Leftist isn̢۪t fascist by definition, maybe that̢۪s what they want us to believe. |
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:37:37 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
First of all, George Bush and his administration are showing us that they are not true conservatives being that they have increased the size of government tremendously and have increased the national deficit and espouse pre-emptive wars. Conservative adminsitrations don't go around invading other countries. Secondly, the way I understand Fascism is that it's a coming together of government and the corporate and using their powers of coercion and violence to further their aims. This couldn't be further from the stands that the left take.
Originally posted by jmritz:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
No, fascism. Both fascism and communism have elements of utilitarianism, but fascism is based in conservatism and communism is based in socialism. You're not saying that the US is socialist are you?
Originally posted by jmritz:
No not Fascism, Communism. |
|
More socialist than fascist, yes.
No I must change that. It might be more fascist. I̢۪ve come to believe the Left in America is very close to Fascist. Especially with their intolerance of religion. Their belief that critical thinking and (government as God) is an answer for the Masses. Pure Socialism is to the left Fascism to the right and they in their extremes meet. Totalitarian governments that will not tolerate any thing not of themselves, especially Religions. |
|
Olyuzi I agree. I think 9-11 was the factor that pushed a conservative into going to war. I think.
Jimmythefish I̢۪m sorry, I was just kidding around.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 09:52:05 PM · #71 |
On the issue of Gay marriage :
"Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
(Boldface added by me)
How can this be read as anything but a clear declaration that Gay Marriage is a right already guaranteed by the Constitution?
Message edited by author 2004-11-04 21:53:31.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2004 10:01:14 PM · #72 |
//www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0726-04.htm
This is the definition of free speech by some. OH, and they say just the opposite. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 10:34:43 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
On the issue of Gay marriage :
"Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
(Boldface added by me)
How can this be read as anything but a clear declaration that Gay Marriage is a right already guaranteed by the Constitution? |
I fully agree.
We however have had quite the lenthy discussion about gay marraige here on DPC here. After 479 posts I think its safe to say those most apposed to gay marraige were so because of religious beliefs.
Again, more examples of how/why religion as a whole is bad. |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 10:40:03 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Have you read the book?
Originally posted by frychikn:
Originally posted by karmat:
[quote]These days I almost feel if you gave that novel to your average God-fearing Bush-supporting neo-con he/she would say 'yeah that sounds about right'. *Shudder* |
The danger about making generalizations about large groups of people is that they are very often wrong about many in that large group. |
Thank you. you said that so much more nicely and politely than I would have! |
[/quote]
Several times; I saw the movie too. Now let's see if YOU read the book! Tell me, why was Ampleforth sent to room 101? |
|
|
|
11/04/2004 10:49:41 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
On the issue of Gay marriage :
"Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
(Boldface added by me)
How can this be read as anything but a clear declaration that Gay Marriage is a right already guaranteed by the Constitution? |
That is not a very good argument. You could use this line of reasoning to say that ANYTHING (axe murder, drunk driving, bank robbery, etc.) is a right already guaranteed by the constitution. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:01:06 AM EDT.
